10th Circuit refuses to restore family planning subsidies in Oklahoma | Center for Constitutional Responsibility

(CN) – A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit on Monday denied Oklahoma’s request to return millions of dollars in Fund X, which the federal government withdrew after the state Department of Health refused to give patients the number of the landline that was coming. provides information about abortion.

Oklahoma had requested the first order requiring the US Department of Health and Human Services to restore the funds, which are intended to help provide family planning services to low-income and rural residents. On Monday, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s decision that denied the request, finding that Oklahoma was unlikely to succeed in its case.

By 2021, Schedule X recipients are mandated by HHS to provide “unbiased, factual information and informal counseling” about all prenatal options and “referrals about all options upon request.”

Oklahoma followed the requirement at first, but only after a decision by the United States Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization allowed the state’s abortion ban to begin, Oklahoma stopped referring patients to facilities that provide abortions. The federal Department of Health and Human Services told the state it could meet that need by providing patients with a national hotline that provides unbiased information about all pregnancy options, including abortion. At first Oklahoma agreed, but shortly thereafter stopped following the policy, causing HHS to withdraw Fund X from the state.

Oklahoma argued that requiring it to provide the phone number violates the Weldon Amendment, a federal law that bars HHS funds from going to state agencies that discriminate against health care organizations because of denial. abortion or abortion. The state continued to argue that its health department should be considered a health care facility and that providing a phone number would result in a referral for an abortion.

In a 2-1 decision, the Tenth Circuit disagreed.

“The hotline provided an opportunity to provide neutral information about abortion,” United States Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote in the majority. “Oklahoma rejected the choice of a national telephone number, but did not question the neutrality of the information provided.”

US Circuit Judge David Ebel, appointed by Ronald Reagan, joined Bacharach’s opinion.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Federico, a Joe Biden appointee, argued in a dissenting opinion that requiring Oklahoma to provide a phone number is tantamount to forcing it to provide withdrawal benefits. belly. He argued that Oklahoma offers informal counseling about all pregnancy options available in the state, so the only reason a patient would need to be given a phone number would be to get information about abortion. belly.

“If a patient desires information about non-abortion options, they will not need to be sent to a national hotline,” Federico wrote. On the other hand, if the patient requests a referral, the Oklahoma provider will assume that it is only to review the option of terminating the pregnancy, which the OSDH determined would be contrary to Oklahoma law and policy.

The panel also rejected Oklahoma’s argument that the ordinance violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause, which the Supreme Court has held requires that Congressional conditions for obtaining federal funds not be it is clear. Oklahoma argued that the Title X statute was vague because it did not include a requirement for abortion counseling, but the court found that the statute gave HHS the authority to impose subsidy requirements and that Oklahoma he was clearly aware of the need when he received help. .

The Center for Constitutional Accountability, a liberal advocacy group that filed an amicus curiae brief supporting HHS’s position, issued a press release celebrating the ruling, praising the Tenth Circuit for “rejecting the effort of Oklahoma to twist the U.S. Constitution against reproductive rights.”

“Today’s decision is a victory for reproductive rights, the power of federal agencies to carry out their duties, and the text and history of the Constitution,” said the Center for Accountability’s Appellate Counsel. Constitutional Law Miriam Becker-Cohen said.

Oklahoma, however, has argued that the HHS decision wrongly removes important family planning funding for low-income and rural residents, which Judge Federico said in his dissent.

“Weighing against HHS’s interest is the fact that the elimination of assistance to OSDH reduces access to health care for those who need it most: patients who visit OSDH clinics for health care because, due to resources or geography, is the only option available to them,” wrote Federico.